But why should Pakeha learn Te Reo as a second language when it is not spoken outside New Zealand? Aside from learning more about an aspect of New Zealand culture that we proudly share with the world despite knowing very little about it there is a significant amount of literature that suggests that learning a second language makes learning the third and fourth one a lot easier. This is because language acquisition is a skill that needs to be continue to be utilized or it fades. Unfortunately a lot of English speakers switch off the part of the language acquisition part of the brain sometime in our teenage years because we speak the lingua franca as a mother tongue. But for how much longer are we likely to have that luxury?

I agree.

I did do a couple of years of Maori at school, with the fearsome Erana Coulter of Ngati Porou, but I dropped it in the 5th form. I only had room for one language, and I opted to continue with German instead. I can't really remember what I was thinking at the time, but probably "usefulness" came into it. In truth, German was useful to me: it opened a lot intellectual doors for me in linguistics and art and literature and politics; led to some travel; and at least once ensured I didn't miss a connecting flight in Frankfurt. But I'd have to say that in my daily life, it isn't really relevant at all. In this country I find it hard to make the case for learning anything but Maori next.

Unfortunately for my sense of self-consistency, we've already signed up for Portuguese classes this term. I want to go to Brazil to pursue capoeira further, and some basic competency is essential. But having said that, reviving and then improving my spoken Maori is absolutely next on the list. It is too weird to have a grasp of a bunch of foreign languages and yet be incompetent in the indigenous one.

So I'm wandering around the back alleyways of stonesoup and Additive Rich when something catches my eye. It's Cal's experiment in a counterfactual New Zealand, drawing what parallels she can between New Zealand and Israel. It's an idea I've heard before; in fact I had it myself, when I first studied law and learned the shameful history of the alienation of Maori land. It's there for any thoughtful New Zealander, and I've often wondered whether the strong anti-Israel strain in the New Zealand Labour party isn't compensating for Pakeha consciences at home.

I fundamentally disagree with the analogy presented but at the same time, there are many interesting things to consider if you accept it for a while.

The average Pakeha New Zealander, when confronted with the idea that they should "go home", tends to ask "where?", particularly if they're native-born. And this is pretty much the reality for Israelis, made the more poignant for those whose families were refugees. So that's an interesting thought.

Then I ask myself, why don't we see armed resistance from Maori in New Zealand any more? It's not as though we haven't fought before. So we can look at the differences between modern New Zealand and Israel, and start identifying where the analogies fall apart.

In New Zealand, Maori sovereignty is now the victim of demography. A Maori revolt is doomed from the outset by sheer force of numbers. Immigration ensured this (the original objectors to a loose immigration policy were Maori, of course), but intermarriage has something to do with it too.

Perhaps a unifying religion is required. Attempts to create a pan-Maori religion have failed. Christian Palestians are a significant minority, but they seem be very much in the shadows as far as taking up arms goes. Israel is definitely dar al-Harb.

Maori are citizens, and have a stake in the greater society. Now we're getting somewhere. Within Israel Arabs have been systematically discriminated against, while those in the occupied territories have been citizens of nowhere. You can make a case that Maori are systemically discriminated against too, but I think it's defensible to argue otherwise, and like Ngata and Pomare, argue that there's more to be gained by joining in. I don't know how long anyone arguing that line is likely to last in the PA at the moment, but in fairness, it's not a very persuasive argument right now either.

And so we can continue teasing apart the differences between our situations. I think Cal's thought-experiment is unsupportable even as far as she's taken it (warriors, eh?), but there's a lot to be gained by comparing and contrasting.